Dungeon Siege III Review

[solidstatemind]

If I may offer a critique.....you're style of reviewing is a bit lackluster. To be frank, every time you said 'I wanted to shake the game's shoulders', I felt like shaking YOUR shoulders for repeating your rather lame joke.

In short, there are two basic 'styles' of reviewing I've seen. The first, is the Yhatzee approach. Tons of jokes, make us laugh, and usually bag on a game more then necessary. The second is the IGN or Gamesweasel approach, wherein you come accross as an informative, respectable informist, and tell us about the game.

So eiather get some better jokes, or cut them alltogether. ITs just...lame if you half-heartedly do one or the other.


Please know that I don't do this for the sake of trolling. I say this purely for your benefit. Feel free to ignore all I've said. Its your choice.

I for one would actually applaud her for not adopting a 'samey-samey' style that you see everywhere. I find Susan's (and most of the Escapist review staff's) work to be informative enough while also bringing a sense of 'talking to a friend about a game' rather than either dealing with someone who is trying to inject way too much humor (I've only seen Yahtzee pull it off) or dryly state the facts in a stuffy academic-report style of review.

Regardless, her style is her style, and I think it's rather presumptuous of you to imply that she needs to change it. If you don't like her style, then skip her reviews-- I'm sure many people do just that. Think of it this way: if you don't like an author, you just don't buy his or her books, right? You don't send them a letter saying "You need to change this-and-that about your style."

(Sorry, author-mode somehow got engaged there.)

OT: I was very leery of DSIII when I saw that Gas Powered Games was no longer making it-- usually, when a franchise is taken over, it suffers a bit. The demo was tolerable, but the users are KILLING the game on Metacritic, so between that and this review, I think this will just be a renter. (Which is unfortunate, since I was a total DSI & II fanboy. Some good times were had by me and my friends in co-op.)

 

[Jake Martinez]

OT: I was very leery of DSIII when I saw that Gas Powered Games was no longer making it-- usually, when a franchise is taken over, it suffers a bit. The demo was tolerable, but the users are KILLING the game on Metacritic, so between that and this review, I think this will just be a renter. (Which is unfortunate, since I was a total DSI & II fanboy. Some good times were had by me and my friends in co-op.)

Yeah, the game is... boring. It's also a wonderful object lesson on how the console-centric gaming industry is neutering any level of complexity (and hence, FUN people!) out of games.

At this point, I think I'm legitimately concerned that Mass Effect 3 will be nothing but a linear series of quick time events with same sex alien makeout scenes sprinkled in.

 

[Susan Arendt]

Now it's just another JRPG (thank you Square/Enix); They might as well give everybody crazy/colourful hair, over sized items and call it Final Fantasy XV!

So because it went the Diablo 2 way of having a pre-set character for each class it's a JRPG now? You make SO little sense.

I even forgot that the first 2 games had customization. I see now. You could customize your skin tone and hair color. Truly worth giving a shit about. Or not.

It had MORE than that and because Square/Enix chose to ignore it... You wouldn't understand; Maybe when you're older.

Yeah, you can just knock it off with the condescension there, my friend. I'm sure you can find a more civil way to convey your argument.

 

[Xaio30]

Dear Obsidian.
Please remake Dungeon Siege 3 with:
1. 360-turn camera.
2. Character creation.
3. More thorough tutorial.
4. Longer story.
5. More interactive dialogue.
6. More than 9 individual abilities.

 

[Grey_Area]

Nothing I've read about DSIII will convince me to buy it in its present form. I loved the first one, and LoA. Didn't get to the second one. This one though, all I've heard about are issues that are showstoppers for me, which is depressing because I was looking forward to this coming out. Oh well. There's always Diablo 3.

Oh yes, and agree with the poster about - interesting how the review pointed to all the flaws, while hardly coming up with anything redeeming, and then saying it is a great game.

Odd.

Oh how I now long for Yahtzee to shred it. Only he wouldn't since the subject matter would be too easy.

Maybe.

 

[Susan Arendt]

Nothing I've read about DSIII will convince me to buy it in its present form. I loved the first one, and LoA. Didn't get to the second one. This one though, all I've heard about are issues that are showstoppers for me, which is depressing because I was looking forward to this coming out. Oh well. There's always Diablo 3.

Oh yes, and agree with the poster about - interesting how the review pointed to all the flaws, while hardly coming up with anything redeeming, and then saying it is a great game.

Odd.

Oh how I now long for Yahtzee to shred it. Only he wouldn't since the subject matter would be too easy.

Maybe.

Did you read the review? I talk extensively about what it gets right.

 

[Grey_Area]

Oh yes, and agree with the poster about - interesting how the review pointed to all the flaws, while hardly coming up with anything redeeming, and then saying it is a great game.
Odd.

Did you read the review? I talk extensively about what it gets right.

You pointed out that it looks good (though you can't see it because of the camera angles flaw)
You pointed out that it has a good story (but you can't drive it because character development is shallow and ythe cutscenes are poorly done).
You said the combat is shallow.
The minimap is no real use.
The multiplayer is an exercise in parasitic partnerships.

And you gave it 3.5/5 or 70%. You described a game that I would have given 50% at best.

(Edit - I will admit to having only read the review - maybe there is more in the video supplement that I cannot watch at work. I'll look at that this evening)

 

[Susan Arendt]

Oh yes, and agree with the poster about - interesting how the review pointed to all the flaws, while hardly coming up with anything redeeming, and then saying it is a great game.
Odd.

Did you read the review? I talk extensively about what it gets right.

You pointed out that it looks good (though you can't see it because of the camera angles flaw)
You pointed out that it has a good story (but you can't drive it because character development is shallow and ythe cutscenes are poorly done).
You said the combat is shallow.
The minimap is no real use.
The multiplayer is an exercise in parasitic partnerships.

And you gave it 3.5/5 or 70%. You described a game that I would have given 50% at best.

(Edit - I will admit to having only read the review - maybe there is more in the video supplement that I cannot watch at work. I'll look at that this evening)

I also said that I love playing it and that it was great fun. The word "fantastic" got applied to playing with another person. The combat is shallow, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It is, however, something that should be pointed out, so that people who might want a deeper experience, know that this probably isn't it. Same for things like character development. If you care about that sort of thing, you need to know that you won't find much of it in the game, but if you don't, then you're free to ignore that particular observations.

I love the game and think it's loads of fun, but I'm obligated to point out those aspects that might be offputting for RPG fans.

 

[Grey_Area]

I also said that I love playing it and that it was great fun.

I can appreciate that you enjoyed the game. This just didn't come across to me in the review. What I read sounded more like you wanted to enjoy the game, and therefore excused its many flaws.

Admittedly this is simply my interpretation.

 

[Ryu890]

If I may offer a critique.....you're style of reviewing is a bit lackluster. To be frank, every time you said 'I wanted to shake the game's shoulders', I felt like shaking YOUR shoulders for repeating your rather lame joke.

In short, there are two basic 'styles' of reviewing I've seen. The first, is the Yhatzee approach. Tons of jokes, make us laugh, and usually bag on a game more then necessary. The second is the IGN or Gamesweasel approach, wherein you come accross as an informative, respectable informist, and tell us about the game.

So eiather get some better jokes, or cut them alltogether. ITs just...lame if you half-heartedly do one or the other.


Please know that I don't do this for the sake of trolling. I say this purely for your benefit. Feel free to ignore all I've said. Its your choice.

No wonder you didn't laugh - it wasn't meant to be funny.

Our videos are meant to supplement our written reviews, so if you hate my style so much, you can always just read.

*sighs* Ni....I don't mean to be offensive. I critique because I care. And I admit, it WAS informative. Its just....the 'shaking' joke...it felt entirely forced.


Admittidly, I've only seen like....three Escapist reviews. The FEAR one I felt was well done. Informative. Makes me want to play the game because I know I'd enjoy it with my brother. With this one, I was still informed, but then there was this tacked on 'I'm trying to be funny' implication. (Regardless of weather or not that was your intent, thats how it came across.)

Its like someone painted the Mona Lisa, but then taped a replica Energy Sword to it. Its still a nice picture underneath, but the Energy Sword just detracts from it.


Anyways, I don't 'hate' your style per-sey. All I did, was notice a flaw, and offered my critique. You don't have to accept it. You can just ignore it. Afterall, its just one man's opinion. But know this: I'm not 'wrong'. No, I'm not an egomaniac eiather. Its my opinion. And Opinions, by their very nature, cannot be wrong. Nor are they inherently right.

I only offer critique because I care. I want people to succeed. Do I know everything? No. Am I always right? Heck no! But there's always that chance that I could be right to other viewers.





I'm ranting now. In short....don't be offended. I respect the Escapist, and you as a reviewer with the decency to address a video review professionally. The Escapist itself changed the way I look at games. (Largely due to Extra Credits.)

I don't mean any offense, and the LEAST thing I want to do is make someone uncomfortable. All I meant was to offer my oppinions, on the off chance that they improve the overall quality of your reviews.

 

[Ryu890]

If I may offer a critique.....you're style of reviewing is a bit lackluster. To be frank, every time you said 'I wanted to shake the game's shoulders', I felt like shaking YOUR shoulders for repeating your rather lame joke.

In short, there are two basic 'styles' of reviewing I've seen. The first, is the Yhatzee approach. Tons of jokes, make us laugh, and usually bag on a game more then necessary. The second is the IGN or Gamesweasel approach, wherein you come accross as an informative, respectable informist, and tell us about the game.

So eiather get some better jokes, or cut them alltogether. ITs just...lame if you half-heartedly do one or the other.


Please know that I don't do this for the sake of trolling. I say this purely for your benefit. Feel free to ignore all I've said. Its your choice.

I for one would actually applaud her for not adopting a 'samey-samey' style that you see everywhere. I find Susan's (and most of the Escapist review staff's) work to be informative enough while also bringing a sense of 'talking to a friend about a game' rather than either dealing with someone who is trying to inject way too much humor (I've only seen Yahtzee pull it off) or dryly state the facts in a stuffy academic-report style of review.

Regardless, her style is her style, and I think it's rather presumptuous of you to imply that she needs to change it. If you don't like her style, then skip her reviews-- I'm sure many people do just that. Think of it this way: if you don't like an author, you just don't buy his or her books, right? You don't send them a letter saying "You need to change this-and-that about your style."

(Sorry, author-mode somehow got engaged there.)

OT: I was very leery of DSIII when I saw that Gas Powered Games was no longer making it-- usually, when a franchise is taken over, it suffers a bit. The demo was tolerable, but the users are KILLING the game on Metacritic, so between that and this review, I think this will just be a renter. (Which is unfortunate, since I was a total DSI & II fanboy. Some good times were had by me and my friends in co-op.)

*deep breath*

I in no way consider myself the go-to authority on reviewer styles, and I am certainly not her 'boss' who can tell her exactly how to do her reviews.

That said, you clearly have very little respect for Susan if you believe that she can't handle a little critique, and the only people she needs to talk to are those that comepleatly agree with everything she does.

Here's the simple fact: Ryu890 watched the review, and felt a certain way. That is that it was informative, yet had a repeated lame joke.

This means that her review had a specific effect on one person. This one person may be inconsequential, but there's always that chance that the lurkers feel the same.

I am not commanding her to change her style like some 8 year old troll. I am offering my critique as a viewer. She can ignore it if she wants, or she can take it into consideration. But I believe she's old enough to make that decision on her own, not to have someone leaping to the rescue and saying 'ignore him. You're perfect the way you are.'




*deep breath*

Ni...there I go again. I sound offensive, don't I? Quite frankly, I feel offended. If I didn't like her style, period, I wouldn't be watching. I wouldn't be commenting. Quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time if I thought she was THAT noobish. But I don't.

Heck the fact that she brought out an otherwise quality review is commendable. But its still a review with a rather large blemish, in one person's eye.

But why is it that when someone offers a differing opinion, he's immediately shot down and treated like the bad guy?


I apologize if I sound rude. But I'm pissed now. She's not perfect. No one is. And critiquing can ONLY hurt if someone is incredibly lacking in self-confidence. She can ignore what I've said. And there'd be no issue. But you sell her short when you tell me that suggesting she alters her style is somehow an act of evil.

 

[solidstatemind]

*deep breath*

I in no way consider myself the go-to authority on reviewer styles, and I am certainly not her 'boss' who can tell her exactly how to do her reviews.

That said, you clearly have very little respect for Susan if you believe that she can't handle a little critique, and the only people she needs to talk to are those that comepleatly agree with everything she does.

Here's the simple fact: Ryu890 watched the review, and felt a certain way. That is that it was informative, yet had a repeated lame joke.

This means that her review had a specific effect on one person. This one person may be inconsequential, but there's always that chance that the lurkers feel the same.

I am not commanding her to change her style like some 8 year old troll. I am offering my critique as a viewer. She can ignore it if she wants, or she can take it into consideration. But I believe she's old enough to make that decision on her own, not to have someone leaping to the rescue and saying 'ignore him. You're perfect the way you are.'

*deep breath*

Ni...there I go again. I sound offensive, don't I? Quite frankly, I feel offended. If I didn't like her style, period, I wouldn't be watching. I wouldn't be commenting. Quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time if I thought she was THAT noobish. But I don't.

Heck the fact that she brought out an otherwise quality review is commendable. But its still a review with a rather large blemish, in one person's eye.

But why is it that when someone offers a differing opinion, he's immediately shot down and treated like the bad guy?


I apologize if I sound rude. But I'm pissed now. She's not perfect. No one is. And critiquing can ONLY hurt if someone is incredibly lacking in self-confidence. She can ignore what I've said. And there'd be no issue. But you sell her short when you tell me that suggesting she alters her style is somehow an act of evil.

First things first: I apologize if it seemed like I was attacking you or painting you as the 'bad guy'. That was not my intent. In fact, I took great pains to avoid anything which would be a direct indictment of your opinion. Yes, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion... but so am I.

Let me address the bit about not having respect for Susan: nothing could be further from the truth, and to imply so is a cheap shot, frankly: you're making an assumption which paints me in a bad light. Also, I'm not 'white-knighting' for Susan. She doesn't need my help. I was speaking about critiquing style, and Susan's article just happened to be the one where the subject came up.

To cut to the chase, I'm sorry you're pissed, but I still feel that you are in the wrong. Style is not objective, it's subjective. It is the way that an author distinguishes his or her writing from others that are covering the same subject. Without individual style, we would basically be reading the same articles and stories over and over with little or no variation to offer a different experience.

I had no problem with you saying that you didn't care for the joke-- you are entitled to your opinion. It's when you trotted out the 'In short, there are two basic 'styles' of reviewing I've seen...' that my hackles rose. I can tell you from experience that authors spend a lot of time trying to find their 'voice' (which can be a synonym for style), so it can be a touchy subject. Like I said, if you don't care for an author's style, you wouldn't read his books, right? Why should a review be any different? Yes, you're correct: if you're confident in your style, it shouldn't be that big of a deal... but it still doesn't feel good to hear/read someone saying "Oh, you're doing it wrong. Do this or this."

And finally, I have to ask, how do you reconcile:

So eiather get some better jokes, or cut them alltogether. ITs just...lame if you half-heartedly do one or the other.

...

I say this purely for your benefit.

(emphasis added)

with:

I in no way consider myself the go-to authority on reviewer styles, and I am certainly not her 'boss' who can tell her exactly how to do her reviews.

I am not commanding her to change her style like some 8 year old troll.

That is exactly what you did. And before you claim that was not your intent, I don't see much wiggle room. Perhaps you could argue that it should've come off as a 'suggestion', but the way it was stated caused at least one person (me) to take it differently.

I was fine with everything else you said, really.

And like I said, as an apiring author, it sort of hit home for me. Sorry about that.

 

[Ryu890]

*deep breath*

I in no way consider myself the go-to authority on reviewer styles, and I am certainly not her 'boss' who can tell her exactly how to do her reviews.

That said, you clearly have very little respect for Susan if you believe that she can't handle a little critique, and the only people she needs to talk to are those that comepleatly agree with everything she does.

Here's the simple fact: Ryu890 watched the review, and felt a certain way. That is that it was informative, yet had a repeated lame joke.

This means that her review had a specific effect on one person. This one person may be inconsequential, but there's always that chance that the lurkers feel the same.

I am not commanding her to change her style like some 8 year old troll. I am offering my critique as a viewer. She can ignore it if she wants, or she can take it into consideration. But I believe she's old enough to make that decision on her own, not to have someone leaping to the rescue and saying 'ignore him. You're perfect the way you are.'

*deep breath*

Ni...there I go again. I sound offensive, don't I? Quite frankly, I feel offended. If I didn't like her style, period, I wouldn't be watching. I wouldn't be commenting. Quite frankly, I have better things to do with my time if I thought she was THAT noobish. But I don't.

Heck the fact that she brought out an otherwise quality review is commendable. But its still a review with a rather large blemish, in one person's eye.

But why is it that when someone offers a differing opinion, he's immediately shot down and treated like the bad guy?


I apologize if I sound rude. But I'm pissed now. She's not perfect. No one is. And critiquing can ONLY hurt if someone is incredibly lacking in self-confidence. She can ignore what I've said. And there'd be no issue. But you sell her short when you tell me that suggesting she alters her style is somehow an act of evil.

First things first: I apologize if it seemed like I was attacking you or painting you as the 'bad guy'. That was not my intent. In fact, I took great pains to avoid anything which would be a direct indictment of your opinion. Yes, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion... but so am I.

Let me address the bit about not having respect for Susan: nothing could be further from the truth, and to imply so is a cheap shot, frankly: you're making an assumption which paints me in a bad light. Also, I'm not 'white-knighting' for Susan. She doesn't need my help. I was speaking about critiquing style, and Susan's article just happened to be the one where the subject came up.

To cut to the chase, I'm sorry you're pissed, but I still feel that you are in the wrong. Style is not objective, it's subjective. It is the way that an author distinguishes his or her writing from others that are covering the same subject. Without individual style, we would basically be reading the same articles and stories over and over with little or no variation to offer a different experience.

I had no problem with you saying that you didn't care for the joke-- you are entitled to your opinion. It's when you trotted out the 'In short, there are two basic 'styles' of reviewing I've seen...' that my hackles rose. I can tell you from experience that authors spend a lot of time trying to find their 'voice' (which can be a synonym for style), so it can be a touchy subject. Like I said, if you don't care for an author's style, you wouldn't read his books, right? Why should a review be any different? Yes, you're correct: if you're confident in your style, it shouldn't be that big of a deal... but it still doesn't feel good to hear/read someone saying "Oh, you're doing it wrong. Do this or this."

And finally, I have to ask, how do you reconcile:

So eiather get some better jokes, or cut them alltogether. ITs just...lame if you half-heartedly do one or the other.

...

I say this purely for your benefit.

(emphasis added)

with:

I in no way consider myself the go-to authority on reviewer styles, and I am certainly not her 'boss' who can tell her exactly how to do her reviews.

I am not commanding her to change her style like some 8 year old troll.

That is exactly what you did. And before you claim that was not your intent, I don't see much wiggle room. Perhaps you could argue that it should've come off as a 'suggestion', but the way it was stated caused at least one person (me) to take it differently.

I was fine with everything else you said, really.

And like I said, as an apiring author, it sort of hit home for me. Sorry about that.

I suppose so. In my defense, I WAS posting it somewhat late at night. *sighs*

I didn't mean any disrespect twords Susan. And the reason I was offering the 'styles' thing was more to prove a point. A point that didn't quite come out right perhaps, but a point nonetheless....

If you're going to put humor into something, you have to commit to it. Otherwise it just comes accross.....

*sighs once more* I've been here before. I'm not going to simply repeat it. By now, my oppinion has been made indefinately clear. I believe that her joke was lame, and that she needs to eaither drop jokes in future reviews, or commit to having more, funny ones.


I don't mean any disrespect. And I understand the need for 'style'. I myself am an aspiring author as well. But something my 'mentor' of sorts has hammered into me, is that there's 'styles', and then there's simply 'good writing'.


This isn't to say that I agree with everything my mentor said, particularly around the lines of what is 'overpowered'. However, its very easy to use the term 'style' as a way of being stubborn. (In short, its my 'style' to have underdeveloped, mary-sue characters.)

I don't mean to imply that I'm nessicarially correct. Many, MANY things are subjective, including good and bad writing. But if people don't share their oppinions, the artist can't grow.


I admit the innitial wording of my review seemed a bit strict and harsh. I formally apologize for this.